गोविन्द भाष्य (श्रील बलदेव विद्याभूषण - अचिन्त्यभेदाभेद वेदान्त ब्रह्मसूत्र भाष्य सटीक)

Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): Because the Supreme Lord is by nature
eternal, it may be said that His activities performed with His associates in His
childhood and other ages are also eternal. In this way His many different activities,
from beginning to end, may all be considered to be eternal. However, it is illogical
to say that there can be an eternal previous action that is followed by another
action. If the previous action is followed by a subsequent action, then the
eternality of the previous action is destroyed. If one action is eternal then any
subsequent action must be performed by a different person. To say that the
subsequent action is performed by the same person contradicts both scripture and
direct experience. Every action has a beginning and an end. Without beginning
and end no action can be brought to completion, and without such beginnings and
ends there can be no experience of the nectar of transcendental mellows (rasa).
For these reasons, how can it be possible that the Lord's activities are eternal? If
the Lord's activities were eternal they would be still and unchanging, like a painted
picture. If it is said that the same actions are repeated again and again and in that
way they are eternal, then I say that there are bound to be times when the
beginning of the action is different, and thus the subsequent actions will become
changed, and the action would then not be repeated in the same way as before.
Therefore, how can it be that the activities of the Lord are eternal? Therefore it
should not be accepted that the activities of the Lord are eternal.
Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives
His reply to this idea.
Sūtra 11
sarvābhedād anyatreme
sarva—all; abhedāt—because of non-difference; anyatra—in another place;
ime—they.
Because of complete non-difference they are in another place.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Both Lord Hari and His associates are the same persons in both previous and
subsequent actions. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "sarvābhedād" (because of

complete non-difference). This means that because there is no difference in Their
personalities, the same Lord Hari and the same associates present in the previous
actions are also present in the subsequent actions. That Lord Hari remains one
even though He expands into many forms is confirmed in the Gopāla-tāpanī
Upaniṣad in these words:
eko 'pi san bahudhā yo 'vabhāti
"Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms."
Also, in the Smṛti-śāstra it is said:
ekāneka-svarūpāya
"Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms."
This is also true of the Lord's liberated associates, who remain one even though
they appear in many forms. In the Bhūma-vidyā (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 7.26.2) this
is said of the liberated souls. In the Smṛti-śāstra this is also said in the description
of the Lord's marriage with many princesses and in other pastimes also. In this
way the Lord and the liberated souls can, retaining Their identities, expand
themselves to be present eternally in different places in time. The sentence "It was
twice-cooked" is understood by an intelligent person to mean that one thing was
cooked twice, not that two separate foods were separately cooked. In the same way
the sentence, "He called out the word `cow' twice," means that one cow was
addressed twice, not that two cows were addressed. In this way Lord Hari, His
eternal associates, and His transcendental abodes all retain their identities even
though they are manifested in many different places and perform activities that are
all eternal even though their activities have a beginning and an end. In this way it
is said that a wonderful variety of transcendental mellows are manifested by this
sequence of eternal events. It is not that these ideas do not have their root in the
descriptions of scripture. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.8.3) it is said:
yad bhūtaṁ bhavac ca bhaviṣyac ca
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead exists in the past, present, and future."
In the Atharva Veda it is said:
eko devo nitya-līlānuraktaḥ

"The one Supreme Personality of Godhead is eternally engaged in many, many
transcendental forms in relationships with His unalloyed devotees."*
The Supreme Lord Himself affirms (Bhagavad-gītā 4.9):
janma karma ca me divyam
"One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities
does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but
attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."*
Only a person who has attained the Supreme Lord's mercy can understand and
accept all of this, as the Supreme Lord Himself declares (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
2.9.32):
yāvān ahaṁ yathā-bhāvo
yad-rūpa-guṇa-karmakaḥ
tathaiva tattva-vijñānam
astu te mad-anugrahāt
"All of Me, namely My actual eternal form and My transcendental existence,
color, qualities, and activities, let all be awakened within you by factual realization,
out of My causeless mercy."*
In this way it is proved that the Lord's activities are eternal. However, only the
actions that the Lord performs with the help of His spiritual potency are eternal,
and the actions that the Lord performs with the help of His material potencies and
material time are not eternal, for if the Lord's creation of the material universes
were eternal then the eventual dissolution of the universes could not occur.
Adhikaraṇa 6
Meditation on the Lord's Qualities
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Now the author of the sūtras discusses the following point. In the Vedānta
scriptures the Lord's blissfulness and other transcendental qualities are all

described.
Saṁśaya (doubt): Should all the qualities of the Lord be combined together in
the devotees' meditation, or should they not be combined in that way?
Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): The qualities of the Lord should not be
combined in meditation, for there is not evidence to say that this should be done.
Because it is not said in scripture that all the qualities of the Lord should be
combined in meditation, therefore they should not be so combined.
Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives
His conclusion.
Sūtra 12
ānandādayaḥ pradhānasya
ānanda—bliss; ādayaḥ—beginning with; pradhānasya—of the Supreme.
Of the Supreme those qualities that begin with bliss.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The transcendental qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, such as
His bliss and knowledge, and His paternal affection for they who take shelter of
Him, are all described in the Śruti-śāstra. These qualities should all be combined in
the devotees' meditation, for all together they increase the devotees' thirst to attain
the Lord.
Adhikaraṇa 7
The Supreme Lord Is Full of Bliss
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

विषयः — श्रुतिशास्त्रेषु प्रतिपादितं यत् परब्रह्म परमपुरुषः आनन्दमयः अस्ति, तस्य शिरः प्रभृत्यवयवाः अपि दिव्यपरमानन्दस्वरूपाः सन्ति। तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२.५.१) उक्तम् —
श्रुतिः — «तस्य प्रियमेव शिरः»
हिन्दी-अनुवादः — "परमपुरुषः भगवान् पक्षिरूपेण कल्पितः, यस्य प्रियमेव मस्तकम् अस्ति।"
संशयः — किं भगवतः एते प्रियशिरस्त्वादि-धर्माः सर्वासु उपासनासु अनुचिन्तनीयाः, अथवा न अनुचिन्तनीयाः?
पूर्वपक्षः — पूर्वस्मिन् अधिकरणे सिद्धं यत् आनन्दादयः ब्रह्मधर्माः सर्वविद्यासु उपसंहर्तव्याः। तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि प्रतिपादितं 'प्रियम्' अपि आनन्दादभिन्नमेव, अतः प्रियशिरस्त्वादि-धर्माः अपि सर्वासु भगवदुपासनासु संगृह्येरन्।
सिद्धान्तः — अस्य परिहारार्थं सूत्रकारः भगवान् बादरायणः आह —
सूत्रम् १३
प्रियशिरस्त्वाद्यप्राप्तिरुपचयापचयौ हि भेदे ॥ १३ ॥
पदविभागः एवं पदार्थः —
प्रिय — सुखम्, आनन्दः ; शिरः — मस्तकम् ; त्वादि — शिरस्त्व-प्रभृतयः धर्माः ;
अप्राप्तिः — सर्वासु उपासनासु अननुवृत्तिः (न उपसंहारः) ;
उपचय-अपचयौ — वृद्धिः ह्रासः च ; हि — यतः ; भेदे — अङ्गाङ्गिभेदे अथवा अवयवभेदे सति ॥
सूत्रार्थः (हिन्दी अनुवाद) — प्रियशिरस्त्वादि-धर्माणां सर्वविद्यासु उपसंहारो न भवति, यतो हि अवयवभेदे सति उपचयः (वृद्धिः) अपचयः (ह्रासः) च प्रसज्येत।
श्रील-बलदेव-विद्याभूषण-विरचित-गोविन्दभाष्यस्य तात्पर्यम् —
भगवतः शिरः प्रियस्वरूपम्, दक्षिणपक्षः मोदः, उत्तरपक्षः प्रमोदः इत्यादयः रूपाः सर्वासु उपासनासु न उपसंहर्तव्याः।
सच्चिदानन्दघनः श्रीभगवान् विष्णुः वस्तुतः नराकार-स्वरूपः अस्ति, न तु पक्षिस्वरूपः (यथा तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदः अस्मिन् प्रकरणे रूपकत्वेन कथितम्)।
अपि च, तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि वर्णितः अयं पक्षि-सङ्कल्पः केवलं बुद्धेः सुगमावबोधाय कल्पितः, न तु परमार्थतः ब्रह्मणः स्वरूपभेदः।

composed of happiness and joy that increase and decrease. Thus there is a
difference. The Lord is not like that. His happiness never increase or decreases.
Thus the qualities described in this passage of Taittirīya Upaniṣad should not be
included in every meditation on the Lord.
Sūtra 14
itare tv artha-sāmānyāt
itare—others; tu—but; artha—of result; sāmānyāt—because of equality.
But others because of the sameness of the result.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
However other passages of Taittirīya Upaniṣad, such as 2.5.1 (tasmād vā
etasmāt. . . The Supersoul is full of bliss. From Him this world has come.), 2.6.2
(so 'kāmayata. . . The Supreme Personality of Godhead desired: I shall become
many. I shall father many children.), and 2.8.1 (bhīṣāsmāt. . . Out of fear of the
Supreme Lord the wind blows and the sun rises.), which appear both before and
after Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1, and which describe the Supreme Personality of
Godhead's all-pervasiveness, spiritual bliss, creation of the material universes,
supreme power and opulence, and many other of the blissful Supreme Lord's
transcendental qualities, may be included in the devotees' meditations. Why is
that? The sūtra explains: "artha-sāmānyāt" (because of the sameness of the result).
Meditation on the Lord's qualities, such as His supreme power, His opulences,
His friendliness to all, His being the shelter of all, and His granting liberation,
qualities described in the Vedānta scriptures, brings liberation as its result.
Therefore one should meditate on these qualities of the Lord.
Here someone may ask: Why is the Supreme Personality of Godhead described
as a bird in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1? In the Kaṭha Upaniṣad it is said:
ātmānaṁ rathinaṁ viddhi
"Know that the soul is the chariot driver."
In this way the soul is described as the chariot driver and the material body is
described as the chariot. The purpose of this little parable in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad is
to teach that the devotees should diligently control their senses. However, in this

parable of the bird in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1 no purpose is anywhere to be seen.
What is the purpose then? The Vedas do not speak parables without a purpose
behind them.
Fearing that someone may speak these words, the author of the sūtras next
proceeds to explain the meaning of this parable of the bird.
Sūtra 15
ādhyānāya prayojanābhāvāt
ādhyānāya—for meditation; prayojana—other purpose; abhāvāt—because of
the absence.
Because of the absence of another purpose, it is for meditation.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
This sūtra means, "This parable is meant for meditation. This is so because of
the absence of another purpose." The word "ādhyāna" here means "meditation".
This is the meaning. In Taittirīya Upaniṣad (2.1.2) it is said:
brahma-vid āpnoti param
"One who knows the Supreme attains the Supreme."
The Supreme is manifested in two ways: 1. in His original form, and 2. in the
forms of His pastime incarnations. In His original form the Lord has the names
Nārāyaṇa, Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.
They whose intelligence is firmly anchored in the world of matter find it very
difficult to meditate on the Lord, who is spiritual, blissful, and all-pervading.
Therefore, in order that the conditioned souls may more easily understand the
Lord, the Taittirīya Upaniṣad describes the blissful Lord in this parable of "a bird
whose head is pleasure". In this way the conditioned souls attain elevated spiritual
intelligence and are able to meditate on the Supreme directly.
Meditation on the annamaya-puruṣa feature of the Lord is given in Taittirīya
Upaniṣad 2.1.2. Meditations on the prāṇamaya, manomaya, and vijñānamaya-
puruṣas are given in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.2.1, and meditation on the
Ananadamaya-puruṣa feature of the Lord is given in Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1.
These five aspects of the Supreme need not always been included in every

meditation on the Supreme.
Here someone may object: The Supreme is one. There is no basis for your
statement that the Supreme is five.
To this objection the answer is given: In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad it is said:
eko 'pi san bahudhā vibhāti
"Although He is one, the Supreme Lord appears in many forms."
In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
ekaṁ santaṁ bahudhā dṛśyamānam
"Although He is one, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is seen to be many."
In the Catur-veda-śikhā it is said:
sa śiraḥ sa dakṣiṇaḥ pakṣaḥ sa uttara-pakṣaḥ sa ātmā sa pucchaḥ
"He is the head. He is the right wing. He is the left wing. He is the Self. He is
the tail."
In the Bṛhat-saṁhitā it is said:
śiro nārāyaṇaḥ pakṣo
dakṣiṇaḥ savya eva ca
pradyumnaś cāniruddhaś ca
san deho vāsudevakaḥ
nārāyaṇo 'tha san deho
vāsudevaḥ śiro 'pi vā
pucchaṁ saṅkarṣaṇaḥ prokta
eka eva ca pañcadhā
aṅgāṅgitvena bhagavān
krīḍate puruṣottamaḥ
aiśvaryān na virodhaś ca
cintyas tasmin janārdane
atarkye hi kutas tarkas

tv apramaye kutaḥ pramā
"Nārāyaṇa is the head. Pradyumna and Aniruddha are the right and left wings.
Vāsudeva is the torso. Or, Nārāyaṇa is the torso, and Vāsudeva is the head.
Saṅkarṣaṇa is the tail. In this way the one Supreme Personality of Godhead is
manifested in five ways. In this way the Supreme Personality of Godhead enjoys
pastimes as both the limbs and the possessor of the limbs. The Lord's power and
opulence have no limit. He is inconceivable. How can mere logic grasp Him? He is
immeasurable. How can He be measured?"
Sūtra 16
ātma-śabdāc ca
ātma—ātmā; śabdāt—from the Śruti-śāstra; ca—also.
Also because the Śruti-śāstra employs the word "ātmā".
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.5.1 the bird is described as "ātmā" (the Supreme). For
this reason the bird here cannot be an ordinary bird with wings, a tail, and other
like features. The bird here is a parable.
Sūtra 17
ātma-gṛhītir itara-vad uttarāt
ātma—ātma; gṛhītiḥ—understanding; itara—others; vat—like; uttarāt—from
the following.
"Ātmā" here means "consciousness". Because of the following it is like the
others.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

अधिकरणम् — आनन्दमयाधिकरणम् (वेदान्तसूत्रम् १.१.१२-१९)
पूर्वपक्षः —
अत्र कश्चिद् आशङ्केत — तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२.२.३) श्रूयते —
«अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा प्राणमयः» इति ।
तत्र अचेतने जडेऽपि आत्मशब्दः प्रयुक्तः, जीवे चापि प्रयुज्यते ।
तथा तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२.५.१) पठ्यते —
«अन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः» इति ।
तदेवं जडाजडपुरुषेषु आत्मशब्दस्य प्रयुक्तत्वात् कथं नाम अयं सर्वव्यापिनं सर्वज्ञं परं ब्रह्मैव प्रतिपादयतीति निश्चीयेत ?
पूर्वपक्ष-भाषानुवादः —
यहाँ कोई शङ्का कर सकता है कि तैत्तिरीय उपनिषद् (२.२.३) में कहा गया है — «अन्योऽन्तर आत्मा प्राणमयः» (इसके भीतर दूसरा आत्मा प्राणमय है) ।
यहाँ 'आत्मा' शब्द का प्रयोग जड़ तत्त्व के लिए हुआ है और इसका प्रयोग व्यष्टि जीवात्माओं के लिए भी होता है ।
उसी प्रकार तैत्तिरीय उपनिषद् (२.५.१) में कहा गया है — «अन्योऽन्तर आत्मानन्दमयः» (इसके भीतर दूसरा आत्मा आनन्दमय है) ।
जब 'आत्मा' शब्द इस प्रकार विभिन्न पुरुषों (अन्नमय, प्राणमय, मनोमय, विज्ञानमय आदि) के लिए प्रयुक्त हुआ है, तो यह कैसे कहा जा सकता है कि यहाँ 'आत्मा' शब्द सर्वव्यापी, सर्वज्ञ परम पुरुष भगवान् का ही वाचक है ?
सिद्धान्तभाष्यम् —
अत्रोच्यते — अत्र 'आत्मा' इति शब्दः सर्वव्यापिनं सर्वज्ञं परमपुरुषमेवाभिधत्ते ।
यतः शास्त्रेषु अन्यत्र बहुषु स्थलेषु अयमेव शब्दः परमपुरुषे रूढः प्रसिद्धश्च दृश्यते ।
यथा च श्रुतिशास्त्रे (ऐतरेयोपनिषदि १.१.१) उक्तम् —
«आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्» इति ।
सिद्धान्त-भाषानुवादः —
इसके उत्तर में कहते हैं — यहाँ 'आत्मा' शब्द का अर्थ सर्वव्यापी, सर्वज्ञ परमेश्वर (परब्रह्म) ही है ।
ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि शास्त्र के अन्य अनेक स्थलों पर इस शब्द का प्रयोग इसी अर्थ में किया गया है ।
उदाहरणार्थ, श्रुतिशास्त्र में कहा गया है — «आत्मा वा इदमेक एवाग्र आसीत्» (सृष्टि के प्रारम्भ में केवल एक अद्वितीय परमेश्वर ही विद्यमान थे) ।
हेतुविचारः (उत्तरात्) —
कथमत्र 'आत्मा' शब्दः परमपुरुषपरक एव ज्ञायते ?
सूत्रकारः स्पष्टयति — 'उत्तरात्' (उत्तरवाक्यपर्यालोचनात्) ।
अस्य पक्षिणः (आनन्दमयस्य रूपकस्य) वर्णनानन्तरं तैत्तिरीयोपनिषदि (२.६.२) इदं वचनमाम्नायते —
«सोऽकामयत । बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति ।»
हेतु-भाषानुवादः —
यहाँ 'आत्मा' शब्द भगवान् का ही वाचक क्यों है ?
सूत्रकार स्पष्ट करते हैं — 'उत्तरात्' (परवर्ती प्रसंग के कारण) ।
पक्षी-रूपक के वर्णन के पश्चात् तैत्तिरीय उपनिषद् (२.६.२) में यह वचन आता है —
«सोऽकामयत बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति» (उस परमेश्वर ने सङ्कल्प किया कि मैं बहुत हो जाऊँ, मैं विविध रूपों में प्रकट होऊँ) ।
निष्कर्षः एवं उपसंहारः —
अतः पक्षिरूपकानन्तरं समाम्नातम् इदं वाक्यं दृढं प्रमाणीकरोति यद् आनन्दमयः पक्षी साक्षात् परमपुरुषः परब्रह्मैव, न त्वन्यः कश्चित् ।
तस्मात् पक्षिरूपके वर्णितः आत्मा परमेश्वराद् भिन्नो भवितुं नार्हति ।
अतएव तस्य पक्षिरूपकस्य प्रयोजनं परमेश्वरस्यैव उपासनार्थं ध्यानसौकर्यार्थं च वर्तते ।
एतदेव समुचितं समीचीनं च व्याख्यानमिति सिद्धम् ।
निष्कर्ष-भाषानुवादः —
अतएव पक्षी के रूपक के बाद आने वाला यह वाक्य सिद्ध करता है कि उस वर्णन में उल्लिखित आनन्दमय पक्षी निश्चित रूप से परमेश्वर ही हैं ।
इस प्रकार यह सम्भव नहीं है कि उस रूपक का पक्षी परमेश्वर न हो ।
इसलिए उस रूपक का प्रयोजन केवल परमेश्वर के ध्यान तथा उपासना में सहायता प्रदान करना है ।
यही इसकी सर्वथा युक्तिसङ्गत एवं यथार्थ व्याख्या है ।

Sūtra 18
anvayād iti cet syād avadhāraṇāt
anvayāt—because of the connotation; iti—thus; cet—if; syāt—may be;
avadhāraṇāt—because of the understanding.
If it is said, "This inference cannot be made," then I reply, "It is right, for that is
the understanding here".
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Here someone may object: It is not possible to conclude, merely on the strength
of the following passages, that the word "ātma" here refers to the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. After all, in the previous passages the word "ātmā"
referred to inanimate matter as well as the individual spirit souls.
If this is said, then the sūtra replies: "syāt" (It is right.) This means: It is right
that the word “ātmā" here refers to the all-pervading, all-knowing Supreme
Personality of Godhead. Why is that? The sūtra explains: “avadhāraṇāt" (for that is
the understanding here). In the previous passages the word "ātmā" clearly referred
to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There it was said (Taittirīya Upaniṣad
2.5.1):
tasmād vā etasmād ātmanaḥ
"The Supersoul is full of bliss. From Him this world has come."
To interpret the word "ātmā" in any other way would do violence to the
meditation described in this passage about the Ānandamaya-puruṣa. In this
passage, passing over the prāṇamaya-puruṣa and the other puruṣas, one comes to
rest at the description of the Ānandamaya-puruṣa, who is certainly the Supreme
Personality of Godhead. As one may point to the star Arundhatī by first pointing
to other stars as reference points, so the description of these other ātmās is meant
to lead the reader to the Ānandamaya-puruṣa, who is the Supreme. Thus the
passages that precede and follow the parable of the bird clearly show that the ātmā
here is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Thus it is proved without doubt.

Adhikaraṇa 8
The Supreme Personality of Godhead Is the Father
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Here the author of the sūtras begins his description of other qualities of the the
Supreme Lord, such as the Lord's being the father of all.
Viṣaya (the subject to be discussed): In the Śruti-śāstra it is said:
mātā pitā bhrātā nivāsaḥ śaraṇaṁ suhṛd gatir nārāyaṇaḥ
"Lord Nārāyaṇa is our mother, father, brother, home, shelter, friend, and goal."
In the Jitānta-stotra, Chapter One, it is said:
pitā mātā suhṛd bandhur
bhrātā putras tvam eva me
vidyā dhanaṁ ca kāmaś ca
nānyat kiñcit tvaya vinā
"O Supreme Lord, You are my father, mother, friend, kinsman, brother, son,
knowledge, wealth, and desire. I have nothing else but You."
In the Jitānta-stotra, in the middle and end, it is said:
janma-prabhṛti dāso 'smi
śiṣyo 'smi tanayo 'smi te
tvaṁ ca svāmī gurur mātā
pitā ca mama mādhava
"O Lord Mādhava, from the time of my birth I have been Your servant, disciple,
and son. You are my master, guru, mother, and father."
Saṁśaya (doubt): Should the devotees meditate on the Lord as their father, son,
friend, and master, or should they not meditate in that way?

Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): The Śruti-śāstra explains:
ātmety evopāsīta
"One should worship the Supreme Lord."
That is how one should meditate on the Lord. One should not meditate on Him
as one's father or in these other ways.
Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives
His conclusion.
Sūtra 19
kāryākhyānād apūrvam
kārya—result; ākhyānāt—because of the statement; a—like; pūrvam—what was
before.
Because of the description of the result it is like the former.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Here the word "pūrva" means "the previous qualities, such as being full of
bliss". The word “apūrva" means "the qualities, such as being the father, that are
like these previous qualities". The devotees should meditate on these qualities.
Why? The sūtra explains: "kāryākhyānād" (Because of the description of the
result). The result here is the result attained by worshiping the Lord with love.
This is explained in Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (5.14):
bhāva-grahyam anīḍākhyam
"The spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead is attained only by love."
The Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself declares (Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
3.25.38):
yeṣām ahaṁ priya ātmā sutaś ca

sakhā guruḥ suhṛdo daivam iṣṭam
"Because the devotees accept Me as their friend, their relative, their son,
preceptor, benefactor, and Supreme Deity, they cannot be deprived of their
possessions at any time."*
Therefore, as the devotees meditate on the Lord as full of transcendental bliss,
so they should also meditate on Him as their father or other relative. The idea that
the Śruti-śāstra's declaration "ātmety evopāsīta" (One should worship the Supreme
Lord) means that one should not think of the Lord as one's father has already been
refuted in this book.
Adhikaraṇa 9
One Should Meditate on the Transcendental Form of the Supreme Personality of
Godhead
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
Viṣaya (the subject to be discussed): Now begins a discussion of the truth that
one should meditate on the Supreme as having a form. In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka
Upaniṣad (1.4.7) it is said:
ātmety evopāsīta"
"One should worship the Supreme Lord."
In the Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (1.4.15) it is also said:
ātmānam eva lokam upāsīta
"Everyone should worship the Supreme Lord."
In the Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad (1.8-10) it is said:
tad u hovāca hairaṇyo gopa-veśaṁ abhrābhaṁ taruṇaṁ kalpa-drumāśritam. tad iha
ślokā bhavanti. sat-puṇḍarīka. . .

"Brahmā said: The Supreme Personality of Godhead is a cowherd boy. His
complexion is like a monsoon cloud. He stays under a desire tree. The following
verses describe Him: His eyes are like lotus flowers. . . "
After thus describing the form of the Supreme Lord, the Gopāla-tāpanī
Upaniṣad (1.10) concludes:
cintayaṁś cetasā kṛṣṇaṁ
mukto bhavati saṁsṛteḥ.
"Meditating on Lord Kṛṣṇa in this way, a person becomes free from the cycle of
repeated birth and death."
Saṁśaya (doubt): Does one attain liberation by worshiping the Lord in His
formless feature or by worshiping the Lord in His feature with a form?
Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): One should worship the Lord in His
formless feature. Only in that way will one attain liberation. Only by meditating on
the Lord with undivided attention does one attain liberation. Because in the form
of the Lord there are eyes and many other different limbs and features of the Lord
it is not possible to give undivided attention to any of them, and therefore it is not
possible to attain liberation by meditating on the form of the Lord.
Siddhānta (conclusion): In the following words the author of the sūtras gives
His conclusion.
Sūtra 20
samāna evaṁ cābhedāt
samānaḥ—equal sentiment; evam—thus; ca—although; abhedāt—because of
not being different.
Although it is not divided in that way, because of non-difference.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
The word "ca" here means "although". Although the Lord's eyes and other
bodily features and limbs are all different, still they leave the same impression on

मूल संस्कृत उद्धरण (Devanagari Recension of Sanskrit Texts on this Page):

• गोपालतापिन्युपनिषत् (१.१०):

  चिन्तयंश्चेतसा कृष्णं मुक्तो भवति संसृतेः ॥

• ब्रह्मसूत्रम् (३.३.२०):

  समान एवं चाभेदात् ॥ २० ॥

the mind. The features of the Lord are like golden statues, which although present
in a great variety of forms, still, because they are all made of gold, leave the same
impression on the mind. Why is that? the sūtra explains: "abhedāt" (because of
non-difference). This means, "because the Lord's eyes and other features and limbs
are not different from His soul or self". For this reason, by worshiping the form of
the Supreme Lord one attains liberation. If this were not so then the description in
Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad (1.10), “cintayaṁś cetasā kṛṣṇaṁ mukto bhavati
saṁsṛteḥ" (Meditating on the form of Lord Kṛṣṇa in this way, a person becomes
free from the cycle of repeated birth and death.) would not be true. In the Smṛti-
śāstra it is said:
satya-jñānānantānanda-mātraika-rasa-mūrtayaḥ
"The forms of the Supreme Lord are undivided. They are all full of eternity,
knowledge, infinity, and bliss."
In this way it is said that although the Lord's forms present a very wonderful
variety, still They are all one in essence. Although this truth was also described in
sūtra 3.2.14, the merciful teacher of Vedānta repeats the same teaching so this very
difficult topic may be clearly understood.
In this section the truth that one should meditate on all the qualities of the
different forms of the Lord has been explained. Now will be considered the nature
of the qualities the Lord manifests in His āveśa incarnations, where He gives
special powers to certain individual souls. In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7.1.1 and
3) it is said:
adhīhi bhagavan iti hopasasāda sanat-kumāraṁ naradas taṁ hovāca. . . taṁ māṁ
bhagavān śokasya pāraṁ tārayatu.
"Nārada approached Sanat-kumāra and said, `O master, please teach me. . . O
master, please take me across this ocean of grief'."
Sanat-kumāra and some other individual spirit souls are śakty-āveśa-avatāras of
the Lord. This means that the Lord has empowered them with knowledge or
certain other virtues. That is why Sanat-kumāra is here addressed as "bhagavān"
(master).
Saṁśaya (doubt): Should one meditate on these great devotees as having all the
transcendental qualities of the Supreme Lord or should one not meditate on them
in that way?
The author of the sūtras here considers this question. First He gives the positive
view.

Sūtra 21
sambandhād evam anyatrāpi
sambandhāt—because of the touch; evam—thus; anyatra—in others; api—also.
Because of His touch it is like this in others also.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
All the qualities of the Lord are present in the four Kumāras and the other
śakty-āveśa-avatāras. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "sambandhāt" (because of
His touch). As fire transforms an iron rod, so the touch of the Supreme Lord
transforms these great devotees.
Now the author of the sūtras gives the negative view.
Sūtra 22
na vāviśeṣāt
na—not; vā—or; aviśeṣāt—because of non-difference.
Or not, because of non-difference.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
One should not meditate on all the qualities of the Supreme Lord being present
in the śakty-āveśa-avatāras. Why is that? The sūtra explains: "aviśeṣāt" (because of
non-difference). This means that even though the Lord has given them special
powers, they remain individual spirit souls. They are not fundamentally different
from other individual spirit souls. The word "vā" (or) here hints that because they
are very dear to the Lord, these souls should be treated with great respect.

Sūtra 23
darśayati ca
darśayati—reveals; ca—and.
It also reveals it.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
This truth is revealed in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7.1.3), for Nārada Muni,
who is here seeking the truth, is himself a śakty-āveśa-avatāra. In this way it is
clear that all the qualities of the Lord are not present in the śakty-āveśa-avatāras.
Sūtra 24
sambhṛti-dyu-vyāpty api cātaḥ
sambhṛti—maintenance; dyu—in the sky; vyāpti—spreading; api—also; ca—
and; ataḥ—thus.
Therefore maintenance and being present everywhere in the sky also.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In this sūtra the words "sambhṛti" and "dyu-vyāpti" are brought together in a
samāhāra-samāsa. These two qualities should not be attributed to the śakty-āveśa-
avatāras. The reason has been given in the previous sūtra. The reason is the śakty-
āveśa-avatāras are individual spirit souls (jīvas). In the Eṇāyanīya recension of the
Vedas it is said (Taittirīya Brāhmaṇa 2.4.7.10):
brahma jyeṣṭhā vīryā sambhṛtāni brahmāgre jyeṣṭhaṁ divam ātatāna. brahma
bhūtānāṁ prathamam tu jajñe. tenārhati brahmaṇā spardhitum kaḥ.
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead possesses all powers. The Supreme

Personality of Godhead is present everywhere in the great sky. The Supreme
Personality of Godhead is the first of persons. Who can rival the Supreme
Personality of Godhead?"
In these words the glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, beginning
with His maintenance of all and His being present everywhere in the great sky, are
described. These qualities cannot be ascribed to the individual spirit souls, for they
are qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead alone.
Now the author of the sūtras gives another reason why these qualities cannot be
ascribed to the individual spirit souls.
Sūtra 25
puruṣa-vidyāyām iva cetareṣām anāmnānāt
puruṣa—of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; vidyāyām—in the knowledge
(the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers); iva—like; ca—also; itareṣām—of others; anāmnānāt—
because of not being mentioned.
It is taught of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the Puruṣa-sūkta prayers,
and it is not mentioned of others.
Purport by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
In the descriptions of the four Kumāras and other śakty-āveśa-avatāras there is
no description of their being the creator and controller of all or of having other
qualities that belong to the Supreme Lord alone. For this reason all the qualities of
the Supreme Lord should not be ascribed to them. Giving an example of the
difference between the individual souls and the Supreme Lord, the sūtra explains:
"puruṣa-vidyāyām" (It is taught of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the
Puruṣa-sūkta prayers). The word "ca" (and) here hints, "and in the Gopāla-tāpanī
Upaniṣad and other scriptures also". These qualities of the Lord are mentioned in
the descriptions of the Lord in these places but they are not mentioned in the
descriptions of Kumāras and other śakty-āveśa-avatāras.
The śakty-āveśa-avatāras may be compared to iron rods heated by a fire. As iron
rods heated by a fire have two natures, so the śakty-āveśa-avatāras may have two
natures also. One nature is like the heat generated by the fire. That nature is the
specific qualities with which the Lord has empowered the śakty-āveśa-avatāra.
They who meditate on these qualities in the śakty-āveśa-avatāra may thus meditate
on all the qualities of the Supreme Lord. The other nature is like the iron rod itself.
That is the nature of the individual spirit soul who is empowered to be a śakty-

āveśa-avatāra. They who meditate on his qualities may not ascribe to him all the
qualities of the Supreme. However, they may meditate on the śakty-āveśa-avatāra's
possessing the qualities of a great devotee, such as his being very dear to the
Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Because He dearly loves them, the Lord accepts the śakty-āveśa-avatāra devotees
as His personal associates. That is why in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam and other
scriptures these great devotees are respectfully addressed as "bhagavān" (lord).
However, because they are individual spirit souls, the śakty-āveśa-avatāras are all
humble and lowly in comparison to the Supreme Personality of Godhead Himself.
This is the proper understanding of their nature.
Adhikaraṇa 10
The Ferocity of the Supreme Personality of Godhead
Introduction by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa
It has been said that one should meditate on the Supreme, especially by
thinking of the Lord's qualities as described in one's own branch of the Vedas.
However, it is said that they who desire liberation should not meditate on certain
of the Lord's qualities. In the Atharva Veda (8.3.4 and 17) it is said:
agne tvaṁ yātudhānasya bhindi
"O fiery Lord, please cut Yātudhāna into pieces!"
and
taṁ pratyañcam arciṣā bidhya marma
"O Lord, with Your flames please break open Yātudhāna's heart!"
Saṁśaya (doubt): Should one meditate on the Lord as one who cuts others to
pieces, or should one not meditate on Him in this way?
Pūrvapakṣa (the opponent speaks): Because the Lord becomes violent only to
stop the demons, therefore it is proper to meditate on the Lord in this way.